The was a time in the 18th century when the widows and orphans left behind by the ones who had passed on was a responsibility overtaken by the neighbors, the relatives and certain groups that took charge of the ones who were in grief. Matters took a turn for the worse when the human life and its demise was turned into a business and where the protection of the widowed and the children started being discussed in terms of finances. Professional services became available for the purpose of the drafting of wills and last wishes. The immoral practice in all this was the discussion of death which followed the inflow of income for the life insurance industries of the time. (Zelizer, p.599-600)
The life insurance at the time was being put to use in order to improve the financial state of the widows and the orphans at the cost of someone’s life. The life insurance companies of the time were trying address the fear of the people about how ensuring life could end it sooner by planting yet another fear in their minds. That, not ensuring life could actually call upon the wrath of the universe. The planting of these fears started with the women and at the end of the day, the same women were made the beneficiaries of the insurance policies drawn on the lives of their own men. (Zelizer, p.600)
Another weakness in the moral practice of this norm was that it had blurred the lines in between the values of the marketable and the nonmarketable. The human life which was supposed to be an object of utmost morality came under discussion in terms of its monetary worth. It was not until the 19th century came to its end that the definition of death in the industry became a little more acceptable. Life insurance became a practice which came forth as the means of facing death and lending a helping hand to those who were in the grievance.
At the turn of the century, the idea of the purpose around the life insurance did not change much. What did change was the redefinition of death as the time when the human capacity for earning sees an end. With the rise of this concept, life insurance was seen less as putting of value to the human life and more as the preparing one’s family for a time when the person was no longer around to take care of them. (Zelizer, p.600)
We could say that the industries which buy and sell the human reproductive cells are the ones operating in an area of sensitive moral standings. To begin with, the converting of the human’s ability to procreate into a monetary advantage is a practice which does not seem to sit well with everyone’s conscience. The second challenge in value is that even though the men and the women are just about equal participants in the process of having a child, the market does not place an equal value on both of the reproductive cells as the normal practice should govern.
Yet another point to ponder upon with this industry remains the basis on which the men and women of today pick and choose the qualities that they want their offsprings to be in possession of. There is undue emphasis on the degree that each parent possesses, and the possible intellect of the future offspring is estimated on the very same basis. (Almeling, p.324)
The strategies of how this type of industry advertises and does business are very different in markets with different cultures. There are also some cultures in this world where this business does not exist, to begin with, because of the beliefs and moral practices within that culture. Since the egg and the sperm in the process of reproduction and the surrogate mothers that carry the child are unrelated to one another, the coming together of the three entities may be problematic to people of certain cultures. The explanation is that the child that finally is given birth to with the help of this market is a child who is born outside of wedlock, and he/she is an unacceptable entity in more than a single culture of the world.
There are however also markets where these commodities and the sale and purchase is not seen with as much shock and disdain. In these markets, there is relatively free exchange of the human reproductive cells, and people are giving birth to children with the help of people who are complete strangers to them.
There are also markets out there where neither of the two cases exist rather the culture permits a middle path. In those cultures, companies that do this business have to campaign in a very coveted fashion, but the services of the reproductive cells are available to the people nevertheless.
It is because of the same moral complications and challenges that even despite there being a need for avenues such as these; the business is not so widespread. It is because of the same moral problems that even in cultures where the business is accepted as a norm, people still hesitate in turning towards this option for the purpose of giving birth. It just seems bizarre to sell the ability to reproduce when that is such a sacred quality to have.
Works Cited
Almeling, Rene. "Selling Genes, Selling Gender:Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material." American Sociological Review (2007): 319-340.
Zelizer, Vivian A. "Human Values and the Market: The case of Life insurance and Death in 19th Century America." American Journal of Sociology (1987): 591-610.
